Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (2.71 seconds)Section 200 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 202 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 319 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Mirza Iqbal @ Golu vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 14 December, 2021
Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of complaint case, statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summoning order dated 07.09.2013 by which the husband of the respondent No.2 and her in-laws were summoned and statement of respondent No.2 recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C., it is evident that statements under Section 244 Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which, general allegations have been levelled against the applicants and respondent No.2 , in her statement, has categorically stated that demand of dowry was asked by her in-laws and no specific allegations have been levelled against the applicants and general and vague averments have been made, as in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and Mirza Iqbal @ Golu & Another (supra), this controversy was considered and observed in the matrimonial offences. In the present case, statement recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. as well as complaint reveals that general allegations have been levelled against all the family members as well as in-laws by the respondent No.2. As it is undisputed that impugned proceedings was quashed in relation to Sushil Kumar (husband of respondent No.2) in Application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.3138 of 2014, vide order dated 24.07.2014.
Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 17 October, 2012
Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of complaint case, statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summoning order dated 07.09.2013 by which the husband of the respondent No.2 and her in-laws were summoned and statement of respondent No.2 recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C., it is evident that statements under Section 244 Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which, general allegations have been levelled against the applicants and respondent No.2 , in her statement, has categorically stated that demand of dowry was asked by her in-laws and no specific allegations have been levelled against the applicants and general and vague averments have been made, as in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and Mirza Iqbal @ Golu & Another (supra), this controversy was considered and observed in the matrimonial offences. In the present case, statement recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. as well as complaint reveals that general allegations have been levelled against all the family members as well as in-laws by the respondent No.2. As it is undisputed that impugned proceedings was quashed in relation to Sushil Kumar (husband of respondent No.2) in Application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.3138 of 2014, vide order dated 24.07.2014.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sushil Kumar Mehrotra vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 1 May, 1984
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.06.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.5, Unnao in Case No.546 of 2013 (Sushil Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others).
1